F1's 2017 revamp: The state of play

Formula 1's last major design revamp was chronically watered-down before being delayed a year prior to its 2014 introduction.

True, the switch from initially envisaged Inline-4 hybrid engines to the current jewel-like V6 powerplants played a major role, but there is no denying that somewhere along the way the cars lost out on vaunted technology such as meaty, low-profile rubber and ground effect aerodynamics.

Thus the current whisper-quiet cars, while markedly more fuel efficient - by a factor of +30 per cent on certain circuits - shed a lot of the 'wow factor' that is so crucial to F1's overall spectacle. This despite being undeniably trickier to control thanks to large dollops of turbo torque and ERS boost combined with rubber designed for sheer spectacle through degradation rather than outright performance.

Add in dropping TV and live ratings across the globe, the demise of two teams due to costs and utter domination by a team that crafted the perfect weapon within the current rulebook, and clearly time had come for a technical rethink.

Quick-fix suggestions ranged from the daft (return to V8s) to utterly ridiculous (dumbed down V6s fitted with twin turbos). However, there was universal agreement about the lack of visual spectacle: the cars simply do not look challenging; do not appear fast; did not grab the punters.

The last rules shake-up ended with Mercedes dominating © LAT

Technical directors were therefore mandated by their bosses to come up with proposals to 'pimp' F1.

The easiest route would be to simply lift fuel flow restrictions - freeing up another 2-300 horsepower to bump the overall figure up to a headline-catching 1000bhp - but that would destroy the rationale behind the hybrids, and so it was decided to target laptime reductions of five to seven seconds through chassis development.

A technical working group was formed, but, in typical F1 fashion, it could not term itself thus as the TWG concept was disbanded with the introduction of F1's controversial Strategy Group, nor could it be dubbed 'Technical Working Committee' as TWC is too closely linked to the (defunct) Formula One Teams Association. Thus TRM was decided upon: Technical Regulations Meeting.

However, a rose under whichever name remains a prickly if fragrant flower, and the group of 10 (plus FIA technical representatives) has met regularly to thrash out draft technical regulations which, in terms of the revised governance procedure, need to pass muster at all levels - Strategy Group, F1 Commission and FIA World Motor Sport Council - by February 28 2016 for introduction the following season.

The overall plan is for laptimes to be reduced by an average of six seconds, with three areas being specifically targeted, each of which would provide roughly a third of the reduction: tyres, aerodynamics and chassis dynamics.

While members of the TRM are sworn to secrecy simply as talks are at conceptual levels, various technical directors agreed to provide broad-brush details on condition of anonymity.

The big challenge is to get the performance cost-effectively right by ensuring that the regulations are compatible, and don't have any negative knock-on effects - make overtaking more difficult, or whatever. Plus, costs need to be contained to ensure equal access to the envisaged benefits by all.

In the words of one technical director: "It would be relatively easy to unlock those levels of laptime improvement by simply relaxing what are an incredibly tightly controlled, complex set of regulations.

Bigger tyres have resulted in some dramatic F1 looks in the past © LAT

"But there's lots of details to go through to make sure it all makes sense, rather than just saying 'OK, bigger diffusers, bigger wings' and all this easy stuff. They all have effects, which, if we're not careful, could be neutralising."

The jury is out as to what laptime improvement tyres could bring to the table, with estimates varying between two and three seconds, to be achieved via wider tyres all around the car, with the fronts being 325mm wide and rears upped to 425mm. To provide a comparison, the fronts will be approximately as wide as the rears currently are, with these being widened proportionately.

Then the big question: low profiles, or will F1 stick to time-honoured 13-inch rim diameters? Again the jury is out - while a senior Pirelli source was adamant that all TDs had agreed to stick to the current dimension (substantiated, incidentally, in passing by an FIA source), one TD reckoned this had "not been agreed to yet".

While this is on the surface a minor detail, it holds major ramifications going forward, and not only technically: Current sole supplier Pirelli and hopeful Michelin are locked in talks with F1's commercial rights holder over a contract to supply tyres from 2017 onwards, with the last-named being absolutely adamant it will not enter F1 unless dimensions move with the times. Could this be the eventual sticking point?

Indeed, those with a political nose detect a ploy to lock out Michelin through a very simple vote taken miles away from the seat of F1's commercial power. This, of course, begs the question given F1 tsar Bernie Ecclestone's documented antipathy towards the French company and his recent shielding of Pirelli: Will F1 future rim sizes be decided by a straightforward technical decision?

Either way, there are unsprung weight considerations. Given roughly the same overall circumference, a low profile cover is filled with less due to rim size, and it does not require Einsteinian levels of maths to realise that the difference is made up of rim - alloy in other words - nor that even the lightest alloy is heavier than pure air. Thus low profiles add approximately two kilogrammes of unspring weight per corner.

Williams proved the master of active suspension last time around © LAT

However, going the low profile route will also likely require the introduction of active suspension to adapt to the low levels of sidewall 'jounce' inherent in such construction, which brings with it various cost factors. While some TDs are adamant that active systems could be standardised to reduce costs, another said simply "it never works that way..."

Another suggested that the pro-active faction consisted of TDs who had worked with the technology in the 1980s/90s and were thus comfortable with it, while the anti (re active?) faction largely comprised TDs who had no experience with such systems, which additionally have increasing road car relevance. On such factors does F1's future hinge...

"We've got to avoid an arms race, because that's when costs spiral and you get big performance differentiators. But, what you can do with active is extremely interesting. It's a great thing to showcase the way the cars can behave. It's completely relevant to road cars," said a TD who falls between the 'old' and 'new' stools.

"F1 was one of the first public uses of active stuff, and on an F1 car it's of huge value to have active suspension, to make the whole thing work in a much more efficient way. You can drop your axle for the drag down the straight for example, and then pick it up in time to get all the downforce in corners, so there's a laptime gain."

Regulated correctly, active suspension provides major costs savings once the basic systems are in place, through reduced freight costs through less suspension componentry and reduced set-up time - plug in a laptop, key in a few parameters and off the driver goes. While it seems unlikely that active suspension will make a return, nothing can be ruled before the end of February.

Tyre performance is not, though, only about size, and here the plan is for the number of (dry) compounds to be increased to six, although our Pirelli source was quick to add that fans need only concern themselves with three during any one race weekend: soft, medium and hard. In other words, what could be dubbed a medium compound at one circuit, could be termed soft or hard elsewhere.

The iconic 1000bhp figure of the 1980s turbos could fall off the agenda © LAT

"From a chemical perspective it could be a wider range. For wets, still one wet and one intermediate... no super-duper monsoon tyre," clarified our source.

Various TDs confirmed that previous talk of 1000bhp power units is just that, and that no technical changes to engines are envisaged for 2017 save for the usual 'clarifications', although, as revealed here last week and confirmed after Monday's Strategy Group meeting, moves are afoot to encourage the use of year-old engines.

"There could be changes [to engines] going forward," shared one TD, "but that is a different argument for a different day. We need to sort out chassis first."

As regards chassis development for 2017, two options are on the discussion table: What is referred to as the 'Red Bull concept' (guess who originated it?) and the 'floor concept', last-named devised by the FIA with input from various teams. Again there are mixed messages: Some TDs suggest that very little difference exists between the two; another source is adamant "there is a definite difference between the two".

Asked to explain the difference, he said: "Fundamentally the Red Bull design is front wing dominant and the FIA is more floor dominant." These comments tie in perfectly with AUTOSPORT's revelations during the British Grand Prix weekend, with further detail provided here.

In order to enable the teams to properly evaluate the two options FIA technical head Charlie Whiting handed down a "CFD amnesty", with teams expected to present their initial findings at the next TRM meet - the fourth such gathering - scheduled to be held on October 2 at a Heathrow hotel prior to a final session in December.

Voting has to date been on a 70 per cent majority basis, with apparently very few major disagreements - which is a pleasant surprise given the vast disparity in team budgets/income, differing technical objectives and packages and massively technical facilities and expertise.

While Claire Williams, deputy team principal of the eponymous team, was hopeful that the revised regulations would result in cost savings, one source differed. He believes the new regulations potentially add "around 30 per cent" to the actually cost of car development and (initial) build. Asked to quantify that cost, he said "around 10 million [pounds], so maybe three or four more initially, thereafter the same as now".

"What's interesting...technically, as always," summarised another source, "[is that] these regulation changes are great projects for the teams because it gives everyone a new opportunity and a fresh approach. I think it will be good for the sport as well.

"We've seen F1 cars go considerably quicker in the past, and the only thing that's holding them back now is the type of regulations we've got. You want an F1 car to make you go 'Jeez, that's fast!' If we are able to do something like this, I think it will have that response. I hope..."